Structuralism and Trotskyism

[Chairman^-_-^]

Does the Trotskyist understanding of Marxism have anything to say about structuralism and the works of Louis Allthuser ? I have to admit, I'm intrigued by his works despite the fact that he was apparently a staunch Stalinist. I don't know of anything in the basic ideas of Trotskyism that would lead one to reject structuralism. Does anyone have any input on this?

[Led Zeppelin]

Structuralism seems a lot like dialectics to me, but I haven't read much about it.

As for Trotskyism, I'm not sure. A quick google search shows that some structuralist articles link to Trotsky's Literature and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/lit_revo/index.htm), not sure why though.

[YKTMX]

Structuralism seems a lot like dialectics to me, but I haven't read much about it.

As for Trotskyism, I'm not sure. A quick google search shows that some structuralist articles link to Trotsky's Literature and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1924/lit_revo/index.htm), not sure why though.

Well, the relationship between Althusser's writing and the dialectic is probably the most problematic aspect of his thought. As an anti-Hegelian, he was natually suspicious of the Hegelian method and its influence on marxist theory, particularly "humanist" variants of marxism. That is, he rejected any conception of marxist thought that defined it as a theory setting out the "development" of man's consciousness from slavery to freedom, from ought to is etc. Nevertheless, Althusser still utilized dialectical language and concepts, most notably in his idea of the 'overdetermined contradiction'. He claimed this idea was in fact Mao's, which is true in the strict sense, although Mao was never really a marxist theorist, so didn't develop it to the extent Althusser did. On the whole, structuralism, particularly in its bourgeois-academic form, saw itself as a reaction against "Hegelian mysticism" - as anti-dialecticians like to call it. This form of argument was very influential on the "analytical" school (people like Cohen) in the 1970's when they argued for a return to a very mechanistic and "orthodoyx" Marxism. For them, marxism is a materialist and scientific theory "perverted" by German idealism (associated, quite unfairly, with a crude version of the dialectical method) - an idea one good comrade on here likes to defend, of course!

The relationship between Trotsky's thought and this branch of Marxism has never really posed itself as an issue for me, I must admit. The best thing would be to consult the chapter in Rees' "Algebra of Revolution" dealing with "Trotsky and the Dialectic of History" if you're interested in Trotsky's interpretation of the dialectic.

[Hiero]

Why do you consider Althusser a marxist but not Mao? That is really confusing since they both come from the same socialist camp, so why the bias against one?

[YKTMX]

Why do you consider Althusser a marxist but not Mao? That is really confusing since they both come from the same socialist camp, so why the bias against one?

I said he wasn't a marxist theorist. I actually do doubt he was a marxist, although that's obviously something to be discussed. I think he was a nationalist anti-imperialist.

[Hiero]

I said he wasn't a marxist theorist. I actually do doubt he was a marxist, although that's obviously something to be discussed. I think he was a nationalist anti-imperialist.

Ok I think that makes sense. I don't agree, I think Mao was a theorist, he just doesn't have a large institution behind him to provide legitimisation, like the large western acadamia.

[Hit The North]

Ok I think that makes sense. I don't agree, I think Mao was a theorist, he just doesn't have a large institution behind him to provide legitimisation, like the large western acadamia.

You don't get many institutions bigger than the Chinese state!

[gilhyle]

The closest thing to a structuralist trotskyism (and its not very close) is Callinicos

[RevolverNo9]

Yes I think Callinicos is about as close as you will find - when he was young he was very impressed by Althusser (which still continues to attract (more-or-less good humoured!) a lot of tut-tutting and eye-rolling from his comrades to this day!) Even in the mid-80's he dedicated his Marxism and Philosophy to Althusser 'despite the tragedy that now engulfs him', as he put it with skillful underplay.

His Making History might be of interest:

(http://books.google.com/books?id=2lHDbVlQaJMC&pg=PP1&dq=callinicos+making+history&ei=InOFSpXGFYPGlQSOkPHlCA&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=&f=false)